US DOJ Defends 'Kill President Trump' Interpretation in Comey Case

• The Justice Department is defending its interpretation of a social media post as a violent threat against former President Donald Trump.
• A previous federal court ruling found that the phrase '86 47' does not convey a violent threat, contradicting the government's stance.
• The case highlights the potential for subjective interpretations of social media posts to be used as evidence in federal prosecutions.
• Lawyers should watch for the precedent set by this case, which may influence future cases involving online activity and digital evidence.

There is no serious dispute that an objective viewer of Comey's post could read it to mean 'Kill President Trump.'

The Justice Department has filed an opposition to James Comey's motions to dismiss a federal case related to a social media post. The post, which features shells arranged into the numbers '86 47,' is being prosecuted as a violent threat against former President Donald Trump. In its filing, the government argued that there is no serious dispute over the meaning of the phrase, claiming an objective viewer could interpret it as 'Kill President Trump.' However, this assertion contradicts a previous federal court ruling that found the phrase does not convey a violent threat.

The case against Comey is significant because it highlights the potential for subjective interpretations of social media posts to be used as evidence in federal prosecutions. The government's stance on the meaning of '86 47' has sparked controversy, with many questioning its confidence in the phrase's violent connotation. This development comes amidst growing concerns about the use of technology in legal proceedings and the importance of human judgment in interpreting digital evidence.

The precedent set by this case has far-reaching implications for lawyers and the legal profession as a whole. As the government continues to push its interpretation of '86 47,' it sets a potentially troubling standard for how social media posts are used in federal prosecutions. Lawyers should pay close attention to this development, as it may influence future cases involving online activity and digital evidence.

Lawyers should watch for the precedent set by this case, as it highlights the potential for subjective interpretations of social media posts to be used as evidence in federal prosecutions.

Source: Original reporting via The DOJ Insists There’s ‘No Serious Dispute’ About A Phrase Everyone Is Disputing